Appellate remedy and regulated cross-examination under the tribunal framework were upheld despite available statutory appeal.

An order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal that substantially affects rights or liabilities is appealable, because the appellate scheme under Sections 17, 20 and 21 extends beyond final orders and covers interim orders with operative impact; purely procedural or ministerial directions are excluded. Regulations 31 and 32 were upheld as valid and intra vires, since they fit the Act and Rules, preserve affidavit-based evidence, and permit cross-examination only where sufficient reason exists. The existence of an appellate remedy does not oust writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227, though its exercise remains discretionary and will depend on jurisdictional error, natural justice, or a pure question of law. Cross-examination may be entertained only within the regulated procedural framework.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal that substantially affects the rights or liabilities of a party is appealable before the Appellate Tribunal; (ii) whether Regulations 31 and 32 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal Regulation of Practice, 1998 are valid; (iii) whether the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 can be exercised despite the availability of an appellate remedy; and (iv) whether a prayer for cross-examination of a deponent can be entertained under the procedural framework governing the Tribunal.

Issue (i): Whether an order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal that substantially affects the rights or liabilities of a party is appealable before the Appellate Tribunal.

Analysis: The appellate scheme under Sections 17 and 20 of the Act was construed together with Section 21 and the relevant appellate rules. The expressions "any order" and "an order" were held not to be confined to final orders alone. The Court held that procedural or merely ministerial orders would not be appealable, but an interim order affecting rights or liabilities would fall within the appellate remedy. The deposit requirement under Section 21 was treated as applicable to appeals from final determinations of debt and not as controlling the existence of appellate jurisdiction itself.

Conclusion: An appeal lies against an order of the Tribunal that substantially affects the rights or liabilities of a party, and not only against a final order.

Issue (ii): Whether Regulations 31 and 32 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal Regulation of Practice, 1998 are valid.

Analysis: The Regulations were examined in the context of Section 22 of the Act and Rule 12(6) of the 1993 Rules. The Court held that the Tribunal is meant to proceed expeditiously and may normally receive evidence by affidavit, while ordering cross-examination only where sufficient reason exists and the circumstances justify it. The Regulations were read harmoniously with the parent Act and the Rules and were found not to curtail the statutory scheme or the principles of natural justice.

Conclusion: Regulations 31 and 32 are valid and intra vires.

Issue (iii): Whether the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 can be exercised despite the availability of an appellate remedy.

Analysis: The existence of an alternative remedy was held not to oust constitutional jurisdiction. The power under Articles 226 and 227 remains discretionary and may be exercised in appropriate cases, including where jurisdictional error, violation of natural justice, or a pure question of law is involved. On the facts, however, the Court found no ground to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction, and instead granted liberty to pursue the statutory appeal.

Conclusion: The writ jurisdiction survives despite an appellate remedy, but no interference was warranted in the present batch of cases.

Issue (iv): Whether a prayer for cross-examination of a deponent can be entertained under the procedural framework governing the Tribunal.

Analysis: Rule 12(6) and Regulation 32 were read together to hold that cross-examination is not automatic merely because a party desires it. The Tribunal must be satisfied that sufficient reason exists and that the witness can be produced. The Court approved a limited and controlled power to require attendance for cross-examination where the circumstances justify such a course.

Conclusion: A prayer for cross-examination may be entertained if made in accordance with the Regulations and if the Tribunal considers the circumstances sufficient.

Final Conclusion: The statutory appellate remedy was held to extend to tribunal orders substantially affecting rights or liabilities, the challenged regulations were upheld, the writ petitions were found not fit for interference on the facts, and the petitioners were relegated to the appellate forum with liberty to appeal within the time indicated by the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the recovery tribunal framework, an order affecting substantive rights or liabilities is appealable, while procedural affidavit-based evidence and regulated cross-examination remain valid so long as the Tribunal acts within the Act, the Rules, and the principles of natural justice.

---